Sunday, June 24, 2012

Registration is Laborous


Labor is defined as work of any type, including mental exertion. Black's Law, 7th Edition.

The subject registration laws impose a duty on the targeted individual to leave his home or immediate vicinity and travel to a government data bank four (4) times a year to supply the data bank with valuable data, remain vigilant over that data to determine any material change and timely return to report any such change in order to keep the data current within a [48] hour margin of error, for a term of years or for life, by threat of death or imprisonment. NRS 179C.010 et seq; NRS 179D.010 et seq. Compliance is  submission to a show of authority which is a seizure of the person under the 4th Amendment. California v. Hodari, 499 US 621, 627 (1991); Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47, 51 (1979); Dunaway v. New York, 442 US 200 (1979). The individual is neither reimbursed for his out of pocket expenses nor paid for his valuable service.

Compliance requires the expense of time off work and travel and the effort of travel to the local data bank where finger prints, photographs and other information is forcibly extracted. Whether justified or not its still an infringement of personal liberty and locomotion identicle to formal arrest (walk through). And, the individual leaves with a lingering obligation to return again and again -- much like returning for court dates -- to report any changes to the supplied data. Buying, selling or renting a car requires more time off work and a return trip to the data bank to report those changes. Changing jobs or place of residence is equally burdensome. The more active an individual the more burdensome registration becomes. So burdensome that a march from Los Angeles to Washington in protest would result in harassment, conviction and imprisonment, as would a mere hike from Las Vegas to Phoenix. Residing farther than a [48] hour walk to the nearest data bank would result in those same impairments of liberty and locomotion. The targeted citizen is thus seized and transformed into a delivery man or courrier, expert witness, clerk and assistant website content manager for benifit an upper enfranchised class.

We assert this seizure of the person is NOT justified because an usurpation of power by the legislature and in direct violation of the bill of rights. Only the Judicial branch of government can impose servitude against a disenfranchised citizen and only then as a punishment for crime of which the accused has been duly convicted upon notice at a jury trial with the aid of counsel and confrontation.

The legislatures determination, whether delegated or not, of who is guilty of a Tier 3 offense and must register for life rather than a fixed term of years clearly found one group worthy of burdens others need not endure.

Registration is not a general duty shared by all. It does not arise from citizenship, residence, the 'social compact' or trinoda necesitas. It is triggered by conviction and is thus against a disfavored subclass for benefit of another [subclass] in violation of the 13th Amendment and Title 18 Chapter 77 of the United States Code. Congress and the states simply 'painted em black and put em to work for free and the benefit an upper class.'

Got public defender?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  US Const Amend IV.

The constructive impingement of liberty involved in the matter at hand parallels arrest the same physical impairments of liberty in the asportations prohibited by 18 USC 120118 USC  1584 and 18 USC 1589, as more fully described above. This constructive seizure of the person is not subject to the timely judicial check required by Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103 (1975) and Berger v. New York, 388 US 41 (1967). "A person [ ] seized by the police [is] thus entitled to challenge the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment [ ]." Brendlin v. California, 551 USc249 (2007). See also Frank's v. Delaware.

The seizure here follows the retrospective extinction of the subject's 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendment rights --- Outlawry; replacing a judicial finding of probable cause with legislative reasonableness to forge a legislative adjudication --- a constitutional Frankenstein --- at the heart of Attainder and obe prohibited by separation of powers. Nev Const Art 3 Sec 1.

Without a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, any seizure of the person is per se unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 573 (1980). Admittedly for effectuating a civil duty, the 13th Amendment bars exception for that seizure now because, although punishment per se, it is NOT as a punishment for crime!

Finally, the legislature's reliance on convicted rather than the 13th Amendment's duly convicted standard is manifestly a deficient, unreasonable, rubber stamp substitute for, and reckless disregard of, exclusively judicial determinations of what lawfully is or was due in a Constitutional circumstance. Johnson v. United States, 333 US 10 (1947). Just who they think they are is simply mind boggling.

Seized by the Queen herself, unchecked will, her magistys guards directly, a tarrif on life, easement and duty, taxation of will, without representation: drug from the countryside, through briar and brush, for the meager contents of my pockets, the gold in my teeth, spectacle for the masses, appeasement of a vintictve  heart.

Got Warrant?